Comments on: Religion and the Presidency http://neoneocon.com/2007/08/14/religion-and-the-presidency/ Tue, 02 Dec 2008 08:27:22 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.1 By: gcotharn http://neoneocon.com/2007/08/14/religion-and-the-presidency/#comment-39737 gcotharn Tue, 14 Aug 2007 22:22:04 +0000 http://neoneocon.com/2007/08/14/religion-and-the-presidency/#comment-39737 Free will exists - including free will to interpret particular religious doctrine differently from one's chosen church's interpretation. Church is about worship. In general, people worship side by side without being in lockstep agreement with each other about religious doctrine. It's a fallacy to view religious persons as automatons, marching to the beat of identical beliefs. As neo (loosely) said: religion does inform moral beliefs; yet individual decisions (both religious and political) depend on a whole host of factors which are particular to the decision-maker. Accomplished persons pick and choose what they agree with inside particular religions. I worship at a Baptist Church, yet I do not agree with every position of the Southern Baptist Convention, nor even with every position of my own church's Pastor. Overall, my Baptist Church suits me better than other local churches. I am NOT Baptist because I am 100% simpatico with Baptist doctrine. Because most educated Americans make up their own minds about their beliefs, and do not allow their beliefs to be dictated by their religious leaders(pace Rudy Giuliani and divorce), it seems silly to electorally punish someone for their chosen religion. An accomplished person is going to make up their own mind independently - regardless of what their religion's leadership advocates. Something else: people oftentimes choose specific churches for reasons other than religious doctrine. I do. Were I in living in another town, I might attend a Presbyterian Church. Attending church is about worshiping together. There are social and community considerations - and I see nothing wrong with that. People can genuinely worship together without sharing every single identical religious opinion. In fact, probably no one ever shares identical religious opinion with the person worshiping next to them. If I had grown up in Rudy's childhood neighborhood, I might have been Catholic - as most of my family and friends might also have been. If I had grown up in Mitt Romney's neighborhood, I might have been Mormon. As an adult, I might disagree with various Mormon doctrine, yet still identify myself as Mormon. Free will exists - including free will to interpret particular religious doctrine differently from one’s chosen church’s interpretation. Church is about worship. In general, people worship side by side without being in lockstep agreement with each other about religious doctrine. It’s a fallacy to view religious persons as automatons, marching to the beat of identical beliefs. As neo (loosely) said: religion does inform moral beliefs; yet individual decisions (both religious and political) depend on a whole host of factors which are particular to the decision-maker.

Accomplished persons pick and choose what they agree with inside particular religions. I worship at a Baptist Church, yet I do not agree with every position of the Southern Baptist Convention, nor even with every position of my own church’s Pastor. Overall, my Baptist Church suits me better than other local churches. I am NOT Baptist because I am 100% simpatico with Baptist doctrine.

Because most educated Americans make up their own minds about their beliefs, and do not allow their beliefs to be dictated by their religious leaders(pace Rudy Giuliani and divorce), it seems silly to electorally punish someone for their chosen religion. An accomplished person is going to make up their own mind independently - regardless of what their religion’s leadership advocates.

Something else: people oftentimes choose specific churches for reasons other than religious doctrine. I do. Were I in living in another town, I might attend a Presbyterian Church. Attending church is about worshiping together. There are social and community considerations - and I see nothing wrong with that. People can genuinely worship together without sharing every single identical religious opinion. In fact, probably no one ever shares identical religious opinion with the person worshiping next to them. If I had grown up in Rudy’s childhood neighborhood, I might have been Catholic - as most of my family and friends might also have been. If I had grown up in Mitt Romney’s neighborhood, I might have been Mormon. As an adult, I might disagree with various Mormon doctrine, yet still identify myself as Mormon.

]]> By: expreacherman http://neoneocon.com/2007/08/14/religion-and-the-presidency/#comment-39740 expreacherman Tue, 14 Aug 2007 23:56:18 +0000 http://neoneocon.com/2007/08/14/religion-and-the-presidency/#comment-39740 Neo, Most Christian people I know, who are aware of Roman Catholic teaching -- might object to the idea of the Commander in Chief being required to "confess" his sins to a priest. This un-Biblical teaching could open the Commander to blackmail, etc. Who knows what may have happened in the Kennedy confession years? How can a Catholic President or anyone expect a man, who happens to be a priest, to be above corruption and bribery, given all the recent reported corruption in the priesthood. ExP(Jack) Neo,

Most Christian people I know, who are aware of Roman Catholic teaching — might object to the idea of the Commander in Chief being required to “confess” his sins to a priest. This un-Biblical teaching could open the Commander to blackmail, etc. Who knows what may have happened in the Kennedy confession years?

How can a Catholic President or anyone expect a man, who happens to be a priest, to be above corruption and bribery, given all the recent reported corruption in the priesthood.

ExP(Jack)

]]> By: Good Ole Charlie http://neoneocon.com/2007/08/14/religion-and-the-presidency/#comment-39742 Good Ole Charlie Wed, 15 Aug 2007 01:35:22 +0000 http://neoneocon.com/2007/08/14/religion-and-the-presidency/#comment-39742 Preacher: Actually I can think of NO historical example of a priest revealing anything said to him during Reconciliation (Confession). My cousin (happens to be a RC priest) could think of no example either. Also, I point out that legally what occurs between an individual and their priest/minister/rabbi is considered a privileged communication and cannot be legally coerced. Same for lawyer/defendant and physician/patient... In all these cases, a mighty weight of precedent, legal and social, reinforces this argument. Preacher:

Actually I can think of NO historical example of a priest revealing anything said to him during Reconciliation (Confession). My cousin (happens to be a RC priest) could think of no example either.

Also, I point out that legally what occurs between an individual and their priest/minister/rabbi is considered a privileged communication and cannot be legally coerced. Same for lawyer/defendant and physician/patient…

In all these cases, a mighty weight of precedent, legal and social, reinforces this argument.

]]> By: Gringo http://neoneocon.com/2007/08/14/religion-and-the-presidency/#comment-39766 Gringo Wed, 15 Aug 2007 14:04:58 +0000 http://neoneocon.com/2007/08/14/religion-and-the-presidency/#comment-39766 As an indication of how times have changed, consider that my Okie yellow-dog Democrat grandmother voted for Hoover in 1928 instead of Al Smith because of Al Smith's Catholic faith. After the Depression hit, she prayed to her Creator for forgiveness for having voted Republican! As an indication of how times have changed, consider that my Okie yellow-dog Democrat grandmother voted for Hoover in 1928 instead of Al Smith because of Al Smith’s Catholic faith. After the Depression hit, she prayed to her Creator for forgiveness for having voted Republican!

]]> By: AST http://neoneocon.com/2007/08/14/religion-and-the-presidency/#comment-39816 AST Wed, 15 Aug 2007 22:33:54 +0000 http://neoneocon.com/2007/08/14/religion-and-the-presidency/#comment-39816 Environmentalism is a religion, complete with its own Grand Inquistitor, Al Gore. What's more, it expects to be allowed to dictate to elected officials. Traditional religions with the exception of Islam give us nothing to fear compared to liberalism, progressivism, environmentalism, pacifism, gay activism and most other forms of activism. Most of the dangerous activists on the right are militants who don't expect to be listened to so much as to take over by force of arms. Those are far less dangerous, because they aren't protected by the First Amendment. Environmentalism is a religion, complete with its own Grand Inquistitor, Al Gore. What’s more, it expects to be allowed to dictate to elected officials. Traditional religions with the exception of Islam give us nothing to fear compared to liberalism, progressivism, environmentalism, pacifism, gay activism and most other forms of activism. Most of the dangerous activists on the right are militants who don’t expect to be listened to so much as to take over by force of arms. Those are far less dangerous, because they aren’t protected by the First Amendment.

]]> By: submandave http://neoneocon.com/2007/08/14/religion-and-the-presidency/#comment-40543 submandave Fri, 24 Aug 2007 19:05:13 +0000 http://neoneocon.com/2007/08/14/religion-and-the-presidency/#comment-40543 A late comment, but I have always been struck by the bigottry inherent in the assumption that simply because a moral position (e.g. abortion) is based upon one's religious conviction that the position itself is lessened or compromised. If a Christian and an Athiest arrive at the same position through different logical/moral paths, why should one be given more weight than the other? A late comment, but I have always been struck by the bigottry inherent in the assumption that simply because a moral position (e.g. abortion) is based upon one’s religious conviction that the position itself is lessened or compromised. If a Christian and an Athiest arrive at the same position through different logical/moral paths, why should one be given more weight than the other?

]]> By: Rob http://neoneocon.com/2007/08/14/religion-and-the-presidency/#comment-46987 Rob Sat, 24 Nov 2007 07:43:39 +0000 http://neoneocon.com/2007/08/14/religion-and-the-presidency/#comment-46987 I think this is the stupidest argument I've every heard. It made me laugh so much I sent it to many friends - " AST Says: August 15th, 2007 at 5:33 pm Environmentalism is a religion, complete with its own Grand Inquistitor, Al Gore. What’s more, it expects to be allowed to dictate to elected officials. Traditional religions with the exception of Islam give us nothing to fear compared to liberalism, progressivism, environmentalism, pacifism, gay activism and most other forms of activism. Most of the dangerous activists on the right are militants who don’t expect to be listened to so much as to take over by force of arms. Those are far less dangerous, because they aren’t protected by the First Amendment." I think this is the stupidest argument I’ve every heard. It made me laugh so much I sent it to many friends -
” AST Says:
August 15th, 2007 at 5:33 pm
Environmentalism is a religion, complete with its own Grand Inquistitor, Al Gore. What’s more, it expects to be allowed to dictate to elected officials. Traditional religions with the exception of Islam give us nothing to fear compared to liberalism, progressivism, environmentalism, pacifism, gay activism and most other forms of activism. Most of the dangerous activists on the right are militants who don’t expect to be listened to so much as to take over by force of arms. Those are far less dangerous, because they aren’t protected by the First Amendment.”

]]>